I have to admit my new Seamaster 300m is a better watch than my Submariner

Posts
2,440
Likes
3,315
If my searches are correct, this is what he actually traded for?
It is. And I do see that for someone who paid $750 for a GMT Master 40 years ago and wore it for decades, this would be considered a step up.
 
Posts
102
Likes
210
“Better” but relative to whom? My Sub 14060M is “better” to me than my AT 150m Seamaster simply because…but I love both.
 
Posts
887
Likes
2,756
Because some or most (?) folks would prefer the Sub over the 300 assuming everything else equal. That’s the premise.

I understand the premise. I was soliciting an explanation as to why it was obvious to the poster that 99% of people would choose the Rolex over the Omega. No explanation was given.
 
Posts
102
Likes
210
I like the new 300 better (I tried it at an AD) than my SubC 114060. But I like my Sub 14060M over both and by a lot. Why? Because the Sub M is 39.5mm, is smaller lug to lug, weighs much less than the other two, and is easier on the wrist for daily use. Price or prestige aside…
 
Posts
168
Likes
52
I'm pretty sure people also said that it was the original Seamaster 300m from the mid 90's which was the watch that forced Rolex to step up their bracelet quality and make significant improvements to match what Omega was doing for less than half the price, whilst still offering a sapphire crystal and 300m water resistance alongside the workhorse 1120 ETA movement that was practically equal in real world use to a Rolex 3000 movement of the time. All those 90's Submariner's generally had over a Seamaster of the same time period was a better bezel, applied white gold indices and the brand name.

Much of the same can be said about the current Seamaster and Submariner (at least 114060) where besides the better bracelet on the Submariner with its excellent tool free adjustment, there's very little between them besides massive price difference.


The Submariner has applied white gold indices whereas the Seamaster applied indices are not made from precious metal such as gold… I still prefer my Seamaster NTTD though.
 
Posts
168
Likes
52
If you set aside price, most would want the Sub. Like if someone offered you a new Sub or a new Seamaster 300 for free, and the only stipulation is that you can never sell it or gift it, but you can wear it for the rest of your life then it gets donated to charity. Of course you take the Sub.

I would not be so sure…
 
Posts
168
Likes
52
Ok, so you see my point. In your hypothetical, I would select the Omega. Why? Because I simply don't care for Rolex. I don't find the watches attractive and I don't like the way that the company does business. The resale value of the brand, which admitttedly is second to none, isn't a prime consideration for me whether it's Rolex, Omega, or any other brand. I buy what I like, not what is going to hold its value the best. Like many members here on OF, I own a number of watches including some brands that are objectively better than Rolex. Although I can afford to purchase a Rolex, I don't own one because they simply don't appeal to me. Market value is a consideration, of course, but far from the most important one for many of us. So I don't buy into your argument that 99% of us would choose the Rolex in your hypothetical.


It’s funny, even though I could have bought Rolex over the years Idid not as I was not overly keen on their aesthetics… I went Cartier, Hamilton, Swatch, IWC, JLC and then Omega.
 
Posts
130
Likes
234
Some ADs in Brazil sell both Omega and Rolex among others (Breitling, Tag Heuer etc.)